On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 05:17:16PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: >> I'd prefer to see OOM-related issues treated as a separate-but-related >> problem if possible so; > > I prefer it too. The OOM killing is already covered in OOM topic from > Hugh, and we can add "OOM detection latency" to it. Thanks for adjusting and updating the schedule, Andrea. I'm way behind in my mailbox and everything else, that was a real help. But last night I did remove that OOM and fork-bomb topic you mischievously added in my name ;-) Yes, I did propose an OOM topic against my name in the working list I sent you a few days ago, but by Monday had concluded that it would be pretty silly for me to get up and spout the few things I have to say about it, in the absence of every one of the people most closely involved and experienced. And on fork-bombs I've even less to say. Of course, none of these sessions are for those named facilitators to lecture the assembled company for half an hour. We can bring it back it there's demand on the day: but right now I'd prefer to keep it as an empty slot, to be decided when the time comes. After all, those FS people, they appear to thrive on empty slots! Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>